Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: visitors see what was last published (not the draft), and that the code can hold the form's height via keeps_its_room, with the form measured in its editor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The output-focused information is front-loaded, and the two clauses about keeps_its_room and measured_at are relevant because no output schema exists. It is dense with em-dashes but each clause carries meaning; only mild trimming is possible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains return semantics (published-vs-draft visibility, height retention, measurement timing) that the agent could not otherwise know. It is nearly complete for a single-param read tool, though it never states the code's format (script tag vs iframe).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (form, id or slug) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the identifier, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource — the embed code shown on a form's Embed tab — which distinguishes it from sibling get_form (form data) and list_forms. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase describing the output ('The code to paste into a page...') rather than stating a retrieval action, so the verb is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The description is entirely output-oriented, so an agent must infer that it should be called when the embed code is needed rather than get_form.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.